On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 21:55, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Here's my take on this (slightly off-topic). The way Azarah designed
> epatch to be used can be seen very specifically in the xfree tarballs.
> So, if we decide to implement a *STANDARD* gentoo naming scheme and
> locations for all our patches then it would like:
>
> xxx_arch_${P*}-description.patch
>
> xxx = number -- determines order in which it is applied
> ${P*} can be either ${PN} if the patch applies well enough to all
> versions, ${P} if specifically for one, or ${PF} if it's just for this
> revision of the ebuild (though epatch doesn't know about that, so that's
> thorny I guess).
>
> However, I agree 384% with you about making patches that can be applied
> across all architectures without harming or otherwise affecting the
> non-this ones.If we really want to enforce this, we should deprecate and then remove the _arch_ section of the syntax for bulk patching so anyone using it is forced to have clean multi-arch patches.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
